April 5, 2007

I'm looking at the front page of the NYT and glad to see the British hostages have been released, but can we talk about the clothes? The men have all been given gray suits (which they're wearing without ties), but the poor woman -- Kaye Turney -- must stand for all the news photography in something you'd be embarrassed to wear to the grocery store.

And it's not so much the headscarf. I didn't want to talk about headscarves today. That was the subject yesterday. I mean I'm still getting traffic from this post on Mahablog, which copied one of the several points I had just made in a post that supported Nancy Pelosi wearing a headscarf. Mahablog nevertheless insulted me and linked not to my Pelosi post but to that old, irrelevant post about feminist bloggers posing with Clinton. The pathetic blogger Amanda Marcotte followed on with this embarrassing post, trashing me, under an image of a gravestone. She begins:

So, the latest wingnut scandal is that Nancy Pelosi went on a political trip and didn’t show off enough of her womanly attributes. Ann Althouse wants Pelosi to be a little bit more of a sexbot.

She linked to the Mahablog rather than to me, so it was pretty obvious that she simply assumed she knew what I'd written and got it absolutely backwards. I updated my post:

Here's Amanda Marcotte's summary of this post: "Ann Althouse wants Pelosi to be a little bit more of a sexbot." Whaa? Marcotte seems to be pulling in signals from outer space. Just flat out nutty, Amanda. Or did you even read this post?

After I wrote that, she got a clue and tried to cover up her embarrassment, by inserting a parenthetical (without noting that it was a later insertion):

(To be fair, she does grant that it’s done out of politeness, but generally revolts against covering. I agree with her that mandatory covering is crap, and that’s why I dislike it when she tells women to hide our breasts in public. I typed this up a little fast, and got lazy. Apologies. I recommend the first link on this page if you want to read some non-lazy blogging on this subject.)

Oh, yeah, Amanda, that's really fair. How did I "generally revolt against covering" other than in exactly the way you have to be opposed to it too? Or is it "fair" because you hate the old Clinton-and-the-bloggers post so much you're entitled to lie about me whenever you feel like it? When did I ever "tell[] women to hide our breasts in public"? Clue: I never did. You are simply a liar. Or is that okay because you were in a hurry? Should I just type up some fast sentences about you because I don't really think you're worth much time? What a pathetic, lame excuse for shoddy thinking and bad writing!

Several of her commenters pointed our how badly she misread me (and continues to misread me). An anonymous commenter noted the parenthetical and wrote:

So basically what you’re saying is that you agree with Althouse’s post but because you don’t like other things she’s said, this post indicates that she’s an awful person?

Here's her response:

Not really, anon. I elucidated further and now have spent about twice as long on this lazy post as I intended. I think the obession [sic] with the headscarf is kind of weird, mostly.

So you trash me, but because you meant it to be one of your "lazy" posts, readers are supposed to leave you alone about it? Especially after you went to all that effort to "elucidate further"? And never mind that "anon." was referring to the added parenthetical. One wonders if Amanda knows what the word "elucidate" means. You can't further elucidate unless you've elucidated before and you're elucidating now. Any more Amanda-style elucidating and we'll be groping around in total darkness. But, oh, well, I'm tired now and you're kind of weird.

Anyway, back to today's fashion statement from the Mideast. Here's a picture of Kaye Turney back in her Royal Navy uniform and out of that astoundingly frumpy light blue pantsuit. And horrible long knit top with all the horizontal stripes! It's one thing to insist on modest clothing. It's quite another to force someone to appear in photographs to be seen by millions, maybe billions, of people wearing the most godawful pantsuit ever constructed. Talk about the exposure of women!

Couldn't she get a halfway decent gray suit -- like the guys? One that buttons closed over a white shirt? Why dress her in a way that you'd be ashamed to leave the house? Or does that last question answer itself?

118 comments:

There must be so much hate and rage in Marcotte. She sits at home boiling and fuming all day, hoping that she can tear someone down with lies and half-truths. I understand why you have to respond to her, but it's an unfortunate waste of time. Oh yeah, I would not be offended if you advocated that women cover up while they are wandering around in public. It seems more civilized....

I agree about Turney's weight. Isn't she supposed to be in the military. Overall this event shows a bad image for the British military. It makes them look soft: from the soft bodies to the televised confessions.

Those who supply the clothes have the obligation to provide something flattering.

Not necessarily, when you consider that they really don't like women much and would rather she be covered up with the equivalent of a couch throw. Your question of why they dressed her that way does answer itself. It doesn't explain the bad disco suits for the men, however.

On the other hand, those bags with the wooden handles are quite stylish. I wouldn't mind having one of those :-)

These soldiers have a chance to redeem themselves if they publicly declare that Iran forced them at gunpoint to make these televised confessions. If they do not, the ones that made the confessions should be dishonorably discharged for the dishonor they have brought upon the Royal Navy, their fellow soldiers, and their country.

"I think the obession [sic] with the headscarf is kind of weird, mostly."

So I guess the feminist obsession with all manner of grand or trivial minutiae of everyday life and its underlying oppressive patriarchal origin, signification and purpose just doesn't apply to the brown people.

Those who supply the clothes have the obligation to provide something flattering. Giving her those horizontal stripes was just wrong.

My God, I hope you are kidding!

This country is torturing detainees and depriving U.S. citizens of fundamental rights, which you apparently have very little problem with, and you are getting all bent out of shape because Iran gives people ugly clothes.

Freder: This country is torturing detainees and depriving U.S. citizens of fundamental rights

Name them. Which citizens, what torture, what rights. Proof, links, not speculation.

[Freder "forgot" to be outraged by Brits being tortured, coerced with threats of rape, or having their Geneva Rights violated]

patca: So I guess the feminist obsession with all manner of grand or trivial minutiae of everyday life and its underlying oppressive patriarchal origin, signification and purpose just doesn't apply to the brown people.

Nope. Marcotte et al don't really believe in the things they lecture us about. They just use feminism as a tool to bash the people they hate.

Re: "...torturing detainees and depriving U.S. citizens of fundamental rights..."

Yeah, Ann. Iran is so about human rights! All they want is to kill a few Jews, and establish sharia in the Eurpean Caliphate. So what's the big deal?

And I am so sick of US soldiers handling the Koran with white gloves, so as not to have an infidel touch the book that says the infidel needs to die. Plus we even didn't flush it down a toilet that doesn't flush, but it sounds true.

If they do not, the ones that made the confessions should be dishonorably discharged for the dishonor they have brought upon the Royal Navy, their fellow soldiers, and their country.

If I recall correctly, you have no military experience. So don't presume to judge the actions of these marines and sailors. First of all, Britain is not at war with Iran, so the restrictions against POWs providing propaganda for the "enemy" do not necessarily apply. So I think you need to stfu and let the British military decide if these men and woman did anything wrong.

I dont know if the UK has a code of conduct similar to the US code of conduct. The actions of the Brits would not be consistent with the US code of conduct. But that doesnt tell us much as Freder points out.

Inasmuch as the Brits were pawns in some sort of power game, I see absolutely nothing wrong with providing obviously faked confessions and admissions which I think were probably more damaging to the Iranians than the brits.

Short of googling this myself, does anyone know what the Brit's standards of conduct are when they are captives?

I dont know if the UK has a code of conduct similar to the US code of conduct. The actions of the Brits would not be consistent with the US code of conduct. But that doesnt tell us much as Freder points out.

Inasmuch as the Brits were pawns in some sort of power game, I see absolutely nothing wrong with providing obviously faked confessions and admissions which I think were probably more damaging to the Iranians than the brits.

Short of googling this myself, does anyone know what the Brit's standards of conduct are when they are captives?

Freder "forgot" to be outraged by Brits being tortured, coerced with threats of rape, or having their Geneva Rights violated]

I already expressed outrage at their Geneva rights being violated. But sorry, I haven't seen anywhere that this group was mistreated. The only Geneva violations I have heard of is the denial of access to both British consular officials and the ICRC. Like you constantly demand of me, please provide a link.

As for the torture of U.S. citizens, Jose Padilla of course. You may disagree with whether the treatment amounts to torture, but that the treatment occurred is not disputed.

Colonel Bob Stewart, who became famous as a hard-hitting commander of British peacekeepers during the Bosnian war, said today that he had been "disquieted" by the captives' TV appearances.

"In the old way we didn't used to say much when were taken as a captive - name, rank number, date of birth," Colonel Stewart told BBC Radio 4's Today programe. "I know things have changed and I know they were not prisoners of war, but I'm a little disquieted about it."

I dont know if the UK has a code of conduct similar to the US code of conduct. The actions of the Brits would not be consistent with the US code of conduct.

That is a good point. If the british soldiers were esentially "ordered" by their superiors to do what ever it takes to stay alive (including making false confessions) than their actions would not be dishonorable. However, I have a hard time believing that such behavior is part of any code of conduct. A soldier making public confessions for the enemy is dishonorable conduct. If one is tortured into making such confessions then they should report and provide evidence of their torture to the public after they are released. Anything else is dishonorable.

The GCs specify what a prisoner is bound to give. Per Convention 3: " Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.

If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status."

As Sloan notes, it may be the British forces are operating under more specific orders.

This country is torturing detainees and depriving U.S. citizens of fundamental rights, which you apparently have very little problem with, and you are getting all bent out of shape because Iran gives people ugly clothes.

I too want to have more details here. Which detainees were tortured, how and when? And which citizens were deprived of basic rights? Again, please document the who, how, and when.

If you don't provide such details and documentation, I think that we can all assume that this was a liberal talking point, as usual, devoid of factual basis.

You may disagree with whether the treatment amounts to torture, but that the treatment occurred is not disputed.

The treatment was not torture.

You just like to pretend that it is so you can use the word "torture" knowing that most people associate the word "torture" with what it really means... things like the medieval stretching rack or the cutting off of fingers.

However, if you use the word "torture" long enough to describe things like keeping people awake for 24 hours, eventually your watered down version of the word "torture" will take hold and people will start associating the word "torture" with things like keeping people awake for 24 hours rather than the medieval stretching rack. At that point, using the word "torture" will be useless to you and your ilk because it will no longer envoke a cruel meaning in your intended audience. At that point you will have to come up with a new word such as "mutilate" or "crucify" to describe things like keeping people awake for 24 hours in order to reinforce your intended point that America is an evil Country and we abuse the world.

A soldier making public confessions for the enemy is dishonorable conduct.

A soldier trying to defuse a tense international situation is not dishonorable conduct. They were obviously ordered not to resist when they were captured (which would ordinarily be against the code of contact since you should resist until it is no longer reasonable). So to judge their conduct as though they were POWs rather than the center of a international standoff between two nations not at war is unfair.

Isn't the Jose Padilla case the one for which the Government -- oops! -- lost a key dvd of his last "interrogation session?" Gee, I wonder what that would have shown. Certainly not torture, by sloan's definition.

(It was very hard for me not to modify definition by tortured, by the way).

Complete isolation for two years. Sleep deprivation (I'm curious why you limited it to 24 hours, sloan -- I've seen no such stated limit). Extremes in temperature. Stress positions. Oh, but that's not torture.

Well, thank you Prof. Yoo for clearing that up. Unfortunately for you, and whoever you might get to agree with you on this site (along with your right wing minions like Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly), the vast majority of legal scholarship, the international human rights community, and even the U.S. government (at least until this administration) doesn't have the same limited definition of torture as you do. Sleep deprivation, stress positions, even prolonged standing are all recognized as torture under certain circumstances and are routinely cited as such when our very own government condemns other governments for torture.

You, and anyone who agrees with you, are simply an uncivilized barbarian no better than the terrorists you condemn, if you think that "torture" consists of such a limited set of barbaric acts. You are a disgrace to the legal profession.

And as I have pointed out repeatedly, even if your disgusting and inhuman definition prevailed, U.S. and international law still doesn't permit the deprivations alleged. Simply "not torturing" detainees is not good enough. The standard of treatment is much higher.

First, there is the apparent incompetence of the Royal Navy in providing insufficient protection to lightly armed inflatables, at a time when relations between Iran and the West were particularly volatile following the imposition of UN sanctions. Second, the seized personnel lost no time in admitting to having trespassed and in apologising for their mistake. The old military practice of giving name, rank and number, and no more, has obviously been abandoned....snip...No one would pretend that it is easy to deal with a nation that, since 1979, has shown itself prepared to treat norms of diplomatic behaviour with contempt. However, the steps that led to the seizure of the 15 on March 23 must be thoroughly investigated.

The rules under which British Military members act may vary a bit from ours. But here are our rules: I have been out of the Marine Corps for more than 15 years, but still find the below words stirring.

Article II am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Article III will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article IIIIf I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IVShould I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article VWhen questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

Article VII will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Freder: While I am generally in agreement with you on this issue, I do have a nitpick. According to the geneva conventions of which both the UK and Iran are signatories, the British Sailors and Marines would be considered POWS. The GCs do not require a declaration of war--only armed conflict.

The question still remains, however, what were their orders and what is the UK code of conduct?

Those who supply the clothes have the obligation to provide something flattering. Giving her those horizontal stripes was just wrong.

Well consider the source. I mean it's Iran we're talking about so I think you need to cut them some slack on fashion. I mean it's not like there are a whole lot of Iranian fashion shows. I think you can have your burqa in any color you want as long as its black.

Now if say, the Italians nabbed them, they'd be outfitted in some nice Versace digs and a nice Gucci swag bag.

However, if you use the word "torture" long enough to describe things like keeping people awake for 24 hours, eventually your watered down version of the word "torture" will take hold and people will start associating the word "torture" with things like keeping people awake for 24 hours rather than the medieval stretching rack. At that point, using the word "torture" will be useless to you and your ilk because it will no longer envoke a cruel meaning in your intended audience.

Tell you what - let's subject you and your "ilk" - er, I mean family - to this.

According to the geneva conventions of which both the UK and Iran are signatories, the British Sailors and Marines would be considered POWS. The GCs do not require a declaration of war--only armed conflict.

I don't disagree that they were entitled to be treated with all the rights and privileges of POWs by Iran (and that Iran's treatment fell short of this because they denied access to the ICRC and British consular offices). What we are discussing is whether the actions of the Marines and Sailors was dishonorable (which it obviously would have been if Iran and Britain had actually been at war). I think those who are so harsh to judge these military personnel are judging them as though Britain is actually at war with Iran, which it is not. If they had been at war they would have never been captured in the first place because they would have offered resistance. So any subsequent action should be judged in context of the diplomatic situation they were placed in.

Complete isolation for two years. Sleep deprivation (I'm curious why you limited it to 24 hours, sloan -- I've seen no such stated limit). Extremes in temperature. Stress positions. Oh, but that's not torture.

Is there any harsh treatment that you wouldn't describe as torture? Or has anything uncomfortable now become torture? I think that something should have to be likely to do lasting biological damage to be considered torture.

That doesn't mean you have to approve of harsh treatment, of course. But I think it's a useful distinction to have.

Complete isolation for two years. Sleep deprivation (I'm curious why you limited it to 24 hours, sloan -- I've seen no such stated limit). Extremes in temperature. Stress positions. Oh, but that's not torture.

Obviously you never had to raise infants.

I would probably call that inflicting discomfort but hardly torture on the scale of ripping out someones fingernails or doing a Casino Royale scene on someone's genitals.

I agree that the term torture has been dumbed down quite a bit. There were complaints that female interrogators were pressing thier breats in detainees faces which amounted to torture. Heck, I have to pay money for that kind of treatment. This is not to say I agree with torture but rather with the current definitions.

If they do not, the ones that made the confessions should be dishonorably discharged for the dishonor they have brought upon the Royal Navy, their fellow soldiers, and their country.

As an American, you are certainly entitled to express your opinion, but what you (or I) think is irrelevant. The government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland shall decide what, if any, disciplinary action shall be taken.

Freder: As I said above" "Inasmuch as the Brits were pawns in some sort of power game, I see absolutely nothing wrong with providing obviously faked confessions and admissions which I think were probably more damaging to the Iranians than the brits." So you and I are in agreement--I was simply trying to point out their actual "legal" status.

if you think that "torture" consists of such a limited set of barbaric acts. You are a disgrace to the legal profession.

You miss my point. The reason why you use the word torture, is because you know it invokes the vision of those few barbaric acts in most people. Most people do not interpret the word using a legal defintion. They understand the word in the vernacular to mean things like the medeival stretching rack. Thus when you claim that "we torture," you hope to get an emotional response out of people based on this common view. You hope that this emotional response will lead people to your cause. However, you also know that most people would not see common interrogation techniques as torture, including waterboarding - especially when we subject our own people to the technique (we do not subject our own troops to the stretching rack). Therefore, you try to change either their opinion of the morality of these specific techniques or change their opinion of the government in general through the abuse of the english language rather than actually describing what the techniques actually are or what the government is actually doing. It's an old political trick - played on the minds of the uninformed and the weak. Why you continue to use the argument on this board is beyond me. Most of the people here smart enough to see through the facade and to recognize the charlatans who perpetuate them.

I think that something should have to be likely to do lasting biological damage to be considered torture.

You do realize that "stress positions" (oh that doesn't sound so bad, making someone stand in an uncomfortable position for a few hours) can cause fluid to build up in the extremities (and in extreme cases the skin will literally burst from the pressure) and can cause blood clots (remember Cheney was hospitalized just for sitting on his ass on a plane for too long a couple of weeks ago) and ultimately death. That Army investigations found that some detainees were locked in closets four feet by two feet by one and a half feet for up to a week at a time (about the size of a file cabinet), only let out for interrogation? Or that "extremes in temperature" can cause induced hypothermia (which also causes hallucinations, confusion, and delusions, so how it can be an effective aid in interrogation is beyond me), which can lead to rapid loss of body temperature and death (which indeed happened to at least one detainee in Afghanistan).

Or that continued combination of these methods and sleep and sensory deprivation can literally drive a person insane (of course Maxine believes this is impossible). Which is apparently what we have done to Jose Padilla.

But of course none of this is torture, because there are no physical scars or broken bones.

remember Cheney was hospitalized just for sitting on his ass on a plane for too long a couple of weeks ago

So by this standard the people who are confined to several hours on the tarmac followed by a flight to Hawaii are being tortured? It has also been claimed inhumane treatment and repressive to have the mere presence of women near Muslim men prisoners. I guess they think they will catch terminal cooties with the nearness of a menstruating woman or the glimpse of an uncovered head.

If we want to discuss the definition of real torture and witness the actions of a brave man during interrogation we have to look no farther than John McCain. As far as I can tell the captured Brits are a bunch of weenies.

I'll rephrase my question: If news had come out that American Soldiers were treated in Hanoi by Soviet captors in a manner that's similar to how Jose Padilla has been treated, and LBJ or RMN used the word torture to describe it, would you have said to yourself Whoa partner! They're not being tortured!!?

So by this standard the people who are confined to several hours on the tarmac followed by a flight to Hawaii are being tortured?

No, it was meant to demonstrate that those of you who dismiss forced stress positions (like Donald Rumsfeld) as being harmless and benign as being complete idiots who ignore the basic facts of human physiology.

RogerA: When you say "I see absolutely nothing wrong with providing obviously faked confessions and admissions which I think were probably more damaging to the Iranians than the brits" you are assuming good faith by the audience, but from many of the world's governments, from the media, and from the left, you will not get good faith. Their "confessions" will be used as evidence of the ill intent of the British.

Torture? I'm all for it. Porky the Sailor Gal looks like she could use a little food deprivation.

She doesn't need a pantsuit. She needs a mu-mu. She could wear it while shopping for Ho-Ho's at Wal Mart. Just make sure she wears flip-flops to complete the outfit.

It's nice to see some fat slobs from other countries. Makes me feel less isolated. We're all becoming one plus size international family.

But I agree, there must be something in some treaty prohibiting horizontal stripes on her. Plus it's dangerous. With stripes on, she could be mistaken for a road barrier, and a terrorist might run her over trying to crash his truck into Big Ben or something.

They dressed the lower enlisted woman, Turney, in garish colorful outfit to further marginalize and humiliate her in Iranian people's eye. Think clown. The Iranian households I have seen in photos from an exile I know visiting relatives and on blogs can be quite bright and full of color, but women are NOT in flashy chadors in public - but in subdued Algore-like "muted earth tones or black".

The Iranian cultural position is that it is nuts to send a weak woman into risky military jobs, countries that do that are craven - and they sent that confirmation out with images a heavyset, soft-looking, smoking women dressed in an clownish outfit that would make Iranian families shudder....And having her show the expected weakness of being the 1st to "crack" and denounce Britain's actions in public.

As for POWs -in the Gulf War, from my conversations with "embeds" US troops serving as air combat control backing a British unit with air power, the Brits did have a code very similar to ours regarding both treatment of POWs and expectations on behavior IF captured as POWs. Do not willingly aid or accomodate the enemy. Maintain chain of command.

RN and Royal Marines don't seem to have followed any of that, and I can't believe they have changed Code in the last 16 years.

It appears that the Brits had a command failure in not conveying clear expectations to troops in the event of capture by forces of a foreign nation or insurgent group - or unlike the USA - permission to resist capture attempts. At a lower level, the two officers in the group appear not to have attempted to enforce CoC and the enlisteds behaved like it was every man (and woman) for themselves.

The idea that soldiers are supposed to have military good order and and follow rules ONLY in captivity of someone they are actually in formal war with is completely fatuous and reflects a lack of knowledge of the military, or military discipline.

That Brit captives appear not to have acquitted themselves well. When China held a crew of P-3 Orion captive in a similar border clash, the crew was under intense pressure and intimidation to "side" with the Chinese version of events. The crew did not. It deferred to the pilot who said to the Chinese that investigations well above his situational awareness would determine who was wrong. He did express "great regret" about the ChiCommie pilot that was killed playing "chicken" with the P-3 when he collided with it, then crashed. No letters were written by the American crew urging Americans to like "the wonderful, gracious Chinese people" no calls to abandon Taiwan.

It could be that the Brits were so smug that they were "covered" doing inspections under the Supreme Moral Authority of King Kofi's UN that they didn't even THINK there was a risk of capture despite the 2004 Iranian "kidnapping" of Brit troops. And all the talk of the UltraLeft component of Labour that had pushed to cut the Royal Navy in half to pay for the latest and greatest domestic welfare programs may have begun eroding the professionalism of soldiers and sailors seeing the posibility of a mothballed British military and a reliance on Euro lawyers and NGOs to impose order on places like Iran through "The Mighty UN and International Law".

From British Naval Command down to lower enlisteds like Turney - no one seemed to have their act together.

It should be very disconcerting for both Americans used to seeing the Brits as a strong ally that has it's military shit together - and the Brits themselves.

Sleep deprivation, stress positions, even prolonged standing are all recognized as torture under certain circumstances and are routinely cited as such when our very own government condemns other governments for torture.

Do you think there is a difference between torturing someone for a confession or just for the sake of torture as opposed torture in the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario? I ask because barbaric or not, I think if there was an imminent threat, say a nuke on a cargo ship, bio-weapon attack what have you, I think a gentle question & answer session is not appropriate. I’d hope that if there was credible evidence that a nuke was en-route to Baltimore harbor, certain niceties would be set aside in the interrogation process. Now if we’re just whacking kneecaps for sadism’s sake then I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Now I know there are some who think Bush and company are simply evil people who welcomed 9/11 just so they could turn Gitmo into our version of Lubyanka and that’s their opinion. I personally tend to have a wee bit more faith that the current administration is acting on good faith in that they are doing these things to protect me and mine and not to satiate some primal desire to inflict pain on people. If it ever comes out that we were unable to prevent another homeland attack because we could not glean the information from some Uzbek sheepherder because it would violate his human rights, I’d hate to be the one to make that admission.

Most people would argue, with good reason, that practices we perform on our own people in training exercises is not "torture."

I don't know who these "most people" are, do you have some kind of citation to demonstrate that "most people" don't consider waterboarding torture, because it is news to me.

Even the president refuses to admit that we have used to admit that we have used waterboarding or that it is an approved technique. It is certainly not an approved interrogation technique for use by the military (in spite of the fact that it is indeed sometimes a part of the more intensive SERE programs).

Earlier I called you Prof. Yoo for a reason. You seem to have fully embraced the definition of torture put forward in the infamous torture memo. A memo which the Administration had to explicitly renounce when it was almost universally denounced as being completely wrong on both the law and the accepted definition of torture (while ignoring the larger point that, as you continue to do, that simply "not torturing" is insufficient). So when you say "most people" define torture the way you do, you are simply wrong (unless of course, you mean most people in Al Qaeda).

You also miss the more important point. Even if we accept your definition, and waterboarding isn't torture, it is still illegal, because it is cruel and inhuman, which is the treatment that is prohibited. To say that as long as we don't torture people we are following the law just does not meet the statutory requirements.

Do you think there is a difference between torturing someone for a confession or just for the sake of torture as opposed torture in the ‘ticking bomb’ scenario?

So far there has been no "ticking time bomb" situation alleged to justify the use of these techniques. I refuse to consider circumstances that have not even been alleged by the government to justify events that did not involve such circumstances.

Ask me the question again when the President actually tries to justify torture with such a situation.

I'll rephrase my question: If news had come out that American Soldiers were treated in Hanoi by Soviet captors in a manner that's similar to how Jose Padilla has been treated, and LBJ or RMN used the word torture to describe it, would you have said to yourself Whoa partner! They're not being tortured!!?

Wouldn’t American soldiers be covered under Article IV of the Geneva Conventions as prisoners of war? I wasn’t aware Jose was a serving member of some armed forces at war with us.

Again, I don’t approve of torture; I simply disagree with what is considered torture nowadays. I agree with Sloan in that I think people think of torture of being beaten senseless in a dark dank concrete cell with a single light bulb hanging overhead. If you’re basically saying that we can’t use any kind of coercion whatsoever to glean intel from terrorists who would like to see mushroom clouds sprouting over every city in the US then we may as well just call it quits now. I’m not saying we get out the thumbscrews but I certainly don’t advocate reading them Miranda and having a gentle interview.

The point I was making with the infant crack is that most parents go through that for the first six months after their kids are born. Sorry if the tongue & cheek attempt at humor was lost.

You seem to have fully embraced the definition of torture put forward in the infamous torture memo.

Argue all the legalisms you want, but you know I am right about the word "torture," and the definition it invokes in most people.

Another trick played by the left (alluded to in a post above) on the "torture" issue is the failure to put torture into context. For example, they will say "America tortures!" Or "America Tortures its own citizens;" or "America Tortures Detainees." These statements are half truths meant to imply that we are interrogating people for no reason or that we are trying to get a false confession. Torture (like the evil rack kind) is not in itself immoral. It depends upon why it is being done. Just as killing is not immoral if done in self defense. Torture can also be done in self defense, such as the ticking time bomb example, or even to find the location of the enemy before the enemy finds you.

Thus, if the Left cried, "oh my god, America tortures Al Qaeda detainees to obtain information about plans to kill American civilians..." their audience of outraged people would shrink significantly. Imagine if they replaced "torture" with "keeps up for 24 hours," the outrage would alomst dissappear (except for themselves).

On the subject of whether the British sailors should have resisted the propaganda "confessions" more fully (and remember, we have no idea what was actually done to them... waterboarding leaves no visible evidence of trauma), I've written a thorough analysis at StubbornFacts.us. The U.S. Army has 2 sets of rules, one for POWs and one for soldiers held captive or detained as hostages by foreign governments during peacetime. While the seizing of the sailors might have been a good reason to start a war, given that there was at the time and currently is not a state of armed conflict between Iran and the U.K., the rules for POWs don't apply.

The rules for hostage behavior are less severe than for POWs. The latter are ordered to resist to the utmost, regardless of torture or anything else. But hostages are simply to exhaust "reasonable" efforts to resist the hostage-taker's demands when it comes to providing propaganda.

Those are the U.S. rules. Don't know if the British do it differently or not.

Mike--you are indeed correct; however, the world is much like the current political environment in this country--People will make their judgments based on what they wish to be true rather than what is. I take a very narrow utilitarian approach with respect to incidents of this kind: make it as easy on yourself as possible if you are the pawn.

Argue all the legalisms you want, but you know I am right about the word "torture," and the definition it invokes in most people.

I play games? You use an illegitimate definition of torture (which the U.S. government has explicitly rejected) to justify techniques that are indeed torture. Then you completely ignore the fact that even techniques that fall outside the definition of torture are still prohibited.

If you’re basically saying that we can’t use any kind of coercion whatsoever to glean intel from terrorists who would like to see mushroom clouds sprouting over every city in the US then we may as well just call it quits now

That is not what I am saying at all. I have made my position clear repeatedly on this site, yet it continues to be distorted. I think that the interrogation and treatment standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (which was revised just last year) should be the standard for the entire government when it comes to foreign detainees. I have linked to it several times, so I am not going to bother here.

Of course there's relativism, you ass. Shooting someone because you want their wallet is a crime. Shooting someone because they're going to hit you with a crowbar is justified. Putting someone on the rack just to punish them is horrible. Putting them on the rack to find out where bombs are planted may be an unpleasant necessity.

Scenario, Fee: You have captured a terrorist in Iraq. You know absolutely that he is part of a group planning on setting off a car bomb somewhere in Baghdad, but don't know where the bomb is or where his conspirators are. What are YOU willing to do to find this information out? And when a dozen innocent people get blown to shreds because you weren't willing to use anything besides harsh language, will you simply say, "Well, at least _I_ have the moral high ground...."

Jesus H. Monkeyballs. It's like arguing with a college freshman who read Nietzsche for the first time.

Scenario, Fee: You have captured a terrorist in Iraq. You know absolutely that he is part of a group planning on setting off a car bomb somewhere in Baghdad, but don't know where the bomb is or where his conspirators are. What are YOU willing to do to find this information out?

Apparently you are willing to do more than is permitted by the U.S. military.

If torture worked to save american lives, it might be useful. The evidence I've read suggests it may be counterproductive, and worsen the treatment of our own soldiers once captured (although bad treatment seems the rule whenever US miltary men were POWs regardless).

One has to be open-minded enough to conceive of the idea that it might be useful, but immoral anyway. Or that it should be limited to psychological techniques alone. It's too easy to dismiss entirely out of hand, but I wonder if, in the end, the negatives outweight the positives.

So for my own opinion, I say kill them all in the field, to destroy their ability to fight again, and remove the temptation to commit torture.

If torture worked to save american lives, it might be useful. The evidence I've read suggests it may be counterproductive, and worsen the treatment of our own soldiers once captured

This is a fair point, which is why being President is hard. We need to evaluate whether waterboarding KSM and potentially saving American lives is worth the possibility for exemple that European citizens will stop buying American products, which ultimately leads to lower economic growth which leads ultimately to the loss of American lives.

The solution... have a Democratic president. That way the press won't care about waterboarding and the Europeans won't find out about it.

If I were about to get my picture taken in those clothes, to be shown to millions or billions of people and I were given the alternative of a subdued gray suit that covered the tops of my thighs and closed over a neutral colored suit but the second alternative would require me to go without sleep for 24 hours, feel hot and cold temperatures, and stand in an uncomfortable position for hours, I would go through the hardship to get to the better clothes.

Iran used those clothes were used to humiliate the woman as a woman, and Iran maintains a legal order in which clothes are used to subjugate women. If you don't think it matters, explain why.

Sleep deprivation, stress positions, even prolonged standing are all recognized as torture under certain circumstances and are routinely cited as such when our very own government condemns other governments for torture.

Sounds like USAF basic training to me, circa 1978. Was I being tortured, and didn't know it?

I have always questioned defining things (like torture and cruel and unusual punishment) from the eyes of society, as we tend to be more civil than the criminal.

We, as society, may question the cruelty in a lethal injection, while the murderer we are contemplating injecting didn't see anything cruel about slitting the throats of half a dozen innocent people.

We may (possibly justifiably) see prolonged standing or forced positioning as torture. Does Ahab the Arab, based on the fact that suicide bombers will take out a dozen with a bomb constructed to do extensive bodily injury as normal behavior, and will probably view our definition of torture making us weak as a nation?

I think that the interrogation and treatment standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (which was revised just last year) should be the standard for the entire government when it comes to foreign detainees. I have linked to it several times, so I am not going to bother here.Yes, I’ve read it. While I have heard that torture results in unreliable information, what conclusions do you draw as to why we have not used the guidelines specified in the Army Field Manual and instead have resorted to torture? I’m not baiting, I am honestly curious because it seems if the methods outlined in the Manual will produce results superior to torture, than the only conclusion I can draw is we have decided to torture them for the sake of it as opposed to obtaining usable intelligence. The main thing I drew from the Manual is that it really doesn’t describe actual procedures but is pretty heavy on the generalities. Take for instance this excerpt on interrogating hostile/antagonistic sources: As a rule, at lower echelons, it is considered unprofitable to expend excessive time and effort in interrogating hostile and antagonistic sources. When time is available and the source appears to be an excellent target for exploitation, he should be isolated and repeatedly interrogated to obtain his cooperation.So when exactly is the target and excellent source for exploitation? Seems to me if I’m a detainee, and I know you are not going to do anything that could hurt, cause discomfort or otherwise violate my human rights even though I’d behead my captors at first chance, under what circumstances would I become an excellent source for exploitation? Again, not saying we get out the thumbscrews and Iron Maiden but the Manual seems to be more of a list of what not to do rather than how to obtain useful intel and considering it forbids you from doing essentially anything to them, they can pretty much tell you to **** off and you have to hand them their Koran and prepare a nice halal meal.

Iran used those clothes were used to humiliate the woman as a woman, and Iran maintains a legal order in which clothes are used to subjugate women. If you don't think it matters, explain why.

While I tend to lean in your direction regarding this Althouse, it could also be that the people who were in charge of getting the people dressed chose the outfits from their own personal taste eminating from their own way of doing things. It seems unlikely that the Mullahs would pay attention to such details. Their instructions were probably something more like "make the infidels look proper." Maybe in Iran, the ridiculous outfit is considered "neutral" rather than ridiculous.

"Democratic White House hopeful John Edwards' team has been collecting e-mail addresses from supporters who've sent his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, notes - and using them for fund-raising requests, aides acknowledged yesterday.

The link on Edwards' campaign Web site invites people to "send a note to Elizabeth and John" and features a sad letter from the former senator penned just after the couple found out her breast cancer had spread and is now incurable.

But people who've been sending such well wishes have been hit with e-mail solicitations from Team Edwards, asking for donations just as all candidates are looking to post big online fund-raising numbers."

I think you've got it! Based on the 'outhouse' view of torture there are ways to make the subject a moot point in the field.

Enemy combatants dressed in civilian clothes, hiding behind civilian shields, blowing up children for Allah, building opcenters over or under a nursery school/hospital/church are not human and are not subject to the codes that apply to the rest of us.

We should off-shore their interrogation under NAFTA to a country without the suicidal tendencies found in certain western countries.

Civilized rules of conduct do not apply to Allah loving murdering terrorists who hate life and love death.

If they are unimportant, why are they used so extensively for the purpose of controlling and subjugating women?

I'm not arguing that clothes aren't used in an attempt at subjugation. I'm saying if you see clothes as unimportant that the attempt at subjugation fails. Now, burkas are another matter, but frumpy pant suits as humuliation? Pluzee.

Or are you saying that the subjugation of women is unimportant?

Ann, that kind of question is beneath you. Leave that kind of thing to Freder.

If they are unimportant, why are they used so extensively for the purpose of controlling and subjugating women? Or are you saying that the subjugation of women is unimportant?

She's also probably wearing a bra, which as we all learned from the bra-burnings of the 70s is another fiendish tool of the patriarchy.

But I'd guess that since at the time Turney had been kidnapped and was being held at gunpoint, the matter of horizontal stripes was not high even on her list of concerns. So yeah, maybe there are more important issues at stake here.

Re torture, I'm surprised that the anti-torture zealots aren't praising Bush rather than condemning him. After all, would you rather be a prisoner in Bush's Abu Ghraib...or Saddam's? In fact, whatever the American standard for torture may be, I'm sure it's a lot more pleasant than that prevailing in most of the Arab world, so if minimizing torture is the goal, we've got a lot more invading to do.

and Iran maintains a legal order in which clothes are used to subjugate women. If you don't think it matters, explain why.

I think it matters and matters a lot. This was my argument yesterday: that Western women and feminists who tacitly go along with allowing the garments of subjugation to be worn without protesting, much less wear them themselves are forfeting any claims to caring about the equality of women.

We can't go in and forcefully change the rules of another culture, but we can and must protest when people in our own society subjugate and demean women by marking them with these types of demeaning clothing styles. If people like the when in Rome analogy for Pelosi in the Middle East, how about when in Rome, Georgia.

Putting them on the rack to find out where bombs are planted may be an unpleasant necessity.

Yes, 'cause we all know that people on the rack being tortured tell the truth.

Ann, I'm not sure where the sleep deprivation is just 24 hours of no sleep meme comes from, other than from sloan. I doubt Jose Padilla's watchers said at hour 25 "Okay, that's enough wake time! Have a nice bit of shut-eye now!"

English Officer: “THEY DIDN'T GIVE YOU A COAT, YANK, THEY GAVE YOU AN INSULT.”

Edgar Derby: “HEY, SON. OVER HERE.”

English Officer: “DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? JERRY TRIED TO HUMILIATE YOU. NOW YOU MUST WEAR THAT COAT AS IF YOU WERE PROUD OF IT. TEACH HIM A LESSON. IT'S TERRIBLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.”

This post supports my half-assed, unresearched theory that women really love to talk about other women, and their clothes, and their relationships....Here are some bogus numbers and foolish generalizations:

%10-15 of women will enter the military

%25-40 of women will enter and finish law school. While at work, they will be competent adversarial advocates. At home they will enjoy talking about women, their clothes and their relationships.

***Note***if law schools rise to %90 women, the remaining men who don't go to war will build a blanket fort with NO GIRLS ALLOWED.

three paragraphs in the original post devoted to torture via bad clothing choices; 6 paragraphs about the trials and tribulations of treatment on feminist blogs. Professor A: I have enjoyed your blog; but given what happened to Joseph Hovsep and apropro Sippican's comments, I really do think you have overdone this topic.

Interesting enough to me, no one really picked up on the primary complaint (at least in terms of word count) and instead focused on issues of torture and other items.

I really do think you have overdone your trials and tribulations by marcotte, valenti, majablog and the rest of that bunch.

I enjoy your blog and I enjoy your format of laying out issues that elicit discussion. I think you are strayinng over the line on this topic, however. My .02.

Ann Althouse - Iran used those clothes were used to humiliate the woman as a woman, and Iran maintains a legal order in which clothes are used to subjugate women. If you don't think it matters, explain why.

Perceptive, and not because I too said they dressed the unwitting lower-level enlisted woman up in garish garb, stuck a cigarette in her mouth and made her and her emotional letters about not belonging in danger when she had a family left at home - the focus of Western weakness.

The message to the Iranian people was that woman are ill-suited for many tasks, as the lower-level enlisted sailor Turney demonstrated.

She showed every Iranian family the folly of western ways, then the 14 background men were then sequentially brought forward to show they also had no chain of command, no discipline, no fight in them. And had readily submitted to superior Islamic men's demands.

In an Islamic honor culture, they showed the Brits, particularly the woman - lacked that sense of honor.

Those Iranian families are smart enough to know that the dishonoring of infidels was partially staged and likely coerced...if only on a level of perhaps promising release in reurn for full assistance on propaganda. But the end result was a motivating show of Iranians getting some of the enemy besieging Iran to grovel and to show the folly of some of their un-Islamic attitudes like woman being the warrior equal of men.

That has to be sweet. For them.

A great propaganda coup for Islamists the world over and partially avenging the Islamic humiliation of thousand man conga lines of Iraqi or Taliban POWs that had quit against similar Brits. Just as Hezbollah's great feat last summer and in Lebanon a decade earlier was showing Muslims that Islamic fighters can stand up to Israel, the Zionists are not 10 feet tall, and past dishonors of mass surrender to Israel need not be the rule. ******************Pathmv had a good post on differences in expected resistance between POWs and those captured by -say - Islamoids that reject any laws when it comes to dealing with uniformed soldiers of another country. There is truth in that, but the same code said there is still an obligation to resist to the maximum extent reasonably possible, and obey the chain of command. Not seemingly denounce that whole chain of command for the promise of cigarettes and being allowed to write a letter to family in return for two propaganda letters.And the Brits appeared to go into an "every person for themselves" mode. The two officers of the 15, in particular, will have much to answer for when they return unless they make a really, really good case that they were covertly beaten until they broke or subject to irresistable coercion.

And nothing yet is known whether or not they similarly readily gave up military secrets endangering others in return for nice treatment..*******************For all those enemy-lovers like Freder that freak out about "interrogating the enemy" and continue to claim info gained is "useless" - why then have every military since the dawn of history assigned some of their smartest and best officers to interrogate the enemy? If it was so useless and the Lefty fantasy that prisoners are always smarter than interrogators and able to outwit them is true - why did that not go on the ashbin of obsolete military tactics like use of clubs against arrows and spears? Because it works.Nor is coercion the same as torture except as Lefty logic goes that a cold cell is the moral equivalent of having fingernails pulled. Torture is torture, and any humiliation is torture too ( so goes their nursery rhyme.)

If interrogations don't work, perhaps our police should be banned from interrogating suspects, too. And lawyers blocked from making any coercive deals - like giving up other child molesters in a ring in return for a more lenient sentence? We know that those confessions and deals - which the ACLU hates - do lead to uncovey of others who do confess themselves or are proven guilty by circumstantial evidence. But if it is too odious to use on terrorists, then surely Lefties want criminals to get a break, too...

If interrogations of terrorists "never work", as Lefties say, I am perfectly willing to accept that - and only act on such information gained to act to protect communities and nations that believe by their elected leadership that such info is not "useless". If we get a terorist that discloses a school in Houston will be massacred by radical Muslims, and a similar school in San Franciso...we should only act on the threat to the Houston school, since the elected leaders of San Fran claim it is "useless". Then see if the Blue City Lefties are right.

For all those enemy-lovers like Freder that freak out about "interrogating the enemy" and continue to claim info gained is "useless" - why then have every military since the dawn of history assigned some of their smartest and best officers to interrogate the enemy?

As usual, you deliberately mischaracterize and distort what I have written.

Amanda Marcotte has just crystalised something that really bugs me about political bloggers - and politicians too, for that matter.

What the frak is so hard about just saying, "You know something, I was just WRONG. There's no excuse, and here's an unqualified apology and now let me put it right"? I have as big an ego as anyone, but there has to be a point where you can't keep defending the indefensible and splitting semantic hairs out of sheer bloody-mindedness.

Yes, 'cause we all know that people on the rack being tortured tell the truth.

This is correct, which is why we're not stupid enough to say "Thanks for the help!" and let them go when they confess. We explain very clearly that if the bombs aren't where he said they'd be, horrible things will be done to his testicles when we come back.

Freder Frederson: "You are comparing wearing ugly clothes to torture. And I am criticized for overreacting to our mistreatment of detainees. Previously, you have appeared unconcerned about the treatment Jose Padilla.I am just stunned."

What is your view of the way prisoners at Abu Ghraib were photographed in undignified clothing? Is it "stunning" to criticize that as comparable to sleep deprivation and uncomfortable standing positions? I'm guessing that when the Americans perpetrate humiliation through improper clothing you understand the seriousness of the problem.

What is your view of the way prisoners at Abu Ghraib were photographed in undignified clothing? Is it "stunning" to criticize that as comparable to sleep deprivation and uncomfortable standing positions? I'm guessing that when the Americans perpetrate humiliation through improper clothing you understand the seriousness of the problem.

Yep, this treatment is equivalent to this. Abu Ghraib was all about the inappropriate clothing and being forced to wear ugly shirts.

As a rule, at lower echelons, it is considered unprofitable to expend excessive time and effort in interrogating hostile and antagonistic sources. When time is available and the source appears to be an excellent target for exploitation, he should be isolated and repeatedly interrogated to obtain his cooperation.

"So when exactly is the target an excellent source for exploitation?"

To me, the quote seems to be saying "let the professionals handle any interrogation."

Freder: This country is torturing detainees and depriving U.S. citizens of fundamental rights, which you apparently have very little problem with, and you are getting all bent out of shape because Iran gives people ugly clothes.

Bruce Haden: "I too want to have more details here. Which detainees were tortured, how and when? And which citizens were deprived of basic rights? Again, please document the who, how, and when.

If you don't provide such details and documentation, I think that we can all assume that this was a liberal talking point, as usual, devoid of factual basis"

If you don't provide such details and documentation, I think that we can all assume that this was a liberal talking point, as usual, devoid of factual basis"

I did, you fucking moron!!

And btw, as usual, my original point was distorted. I didn't even claim that American citizens had been tortured. But since it was brought up, I found evidence that Padilla had indeed been tortured. So by misquoting me, you actually the government appear worse than I even contended (although you turned out to be right).